Re: [CDNi] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-16: (with COMMENT)

[Kevin Ma J <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja,

  Thanks for the (re)review!

  The changes were announced on the list; we will make sure folks have a chance to comment.

  1. We will try and clean up the transition in 2.5.
  2. I think we were thinking of hop-by-hop as CDN-to-CDN, in a cascaded CDN scenario, not router-to-router.  We can update the text to clarify.
  3. We will go back and recheck the references.

thanx!

--  Kevin J. Ma

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 8:12 AM
> To: Kevin Ma J
> Cc: The IESG; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-
> capabilities-semantics-16: (with COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Kevin,
> 
> thanks a lot for performing these changes. The document is much clearer
> now. Did you confirm these changes on the wg mailing list to make the wg
> aware of it?
> 
> There are a few minor nits the RCF editor will for sure care about. I only
> have three remaining comments/questions:
> 
> 1) section 2.5. reads still a little weird because it rather seems to be a
> summary or conclusion of the previous sections than a new subsection on
> the same level than the previous ones. However, I don’t have a real
> suggestion how to fix that. Maybe just add one more introductory sentence.
> But t’s also okay to leave it as it is.
> 
> 2) In section 6 I found the term "hop-by-hop transport-layer security
> mechanisms“. Shouldn’t this be „end-to-end …“?
> 
> 3) Please also check the references again. I’ve added this comment later
> to my ballot position, so you’ve probably have not seen it. I still
> believe that probably the second half of the normative references should
> be informative and 1-2 of the CDNi informative ones should be normative.
> Please check again!
> 
> Mirja
> 
> 
> > Am 23.04.2016 um 19:13 schrieb Kevin Ma J <[e-mail]>:
> >
> > Hi Mirja,
> >
> >  We have restructured the document, removing the focus on the main use
> case and moving the main use case and other historical stuff to appendices
> and trying to make clear just what the decisions were and what the
> requirements are.  This should address the redundancy issue.  We have also
> added a terminology section to better clarify what we mean by footprint
> and capability.  Finally, we changed the document from Informational to
> Standards Track and moved over the two missing object definitions from
> draft-ma-cdni-capabilities.
> >
> >  I think the document is much more readable and functional now.  Thank
> you for your input.
> >
> > thanx!
> >
> > --  Kevin J. Ma
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Kevin Ma J
> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 6:21 PM
> >> To: 'Mirja Kuehlewind'; The IESG
> >> Cc: [e-mail]; cdni-
> >> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >> Subject: RE: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-cdni-
> footprint-
> >> capabilities-semantics-16: (with COMMENT)
> >>
> >> Hi Mirja,
> >>
> >>  Thank you for the review.  Some responses to your comments:
> >>
> >>  1. You are correct, the base object definition was added later.  The
> WG
> >> had agreed that this draft would create a registry for capabilities
> (which
> >> we later aligned with the forthcoming Metadata interface draft to use
> the
> >> Payload Type registry) and register the mandatory capabilities listed
> in
> >> the document.  The discussion with the AD was that just creating a
> >> registry was not a reason to make it Standards Track.  The Payload Type
> >> registry, though, requires an object definition and serialization
> example,
> >> so the objects were added to this document.
> >>
> >>     I guess I see three options:
> >>
> >>     a) Leave the document as Informational,
> >>     b) Change the document to Standards Track, or
> >>     c) Move the object definitions and Payload Type registrations to
> >> another draft.
> >>
> >>     I'm open to suggestions as to what the best approach here would be?
> >>
> >>  2. Footprint is the term used in the Problem Statement (RFC6707), Use
> >> Case (RFC6770) and corresponding Metadata (draft-ietf-cdni-metadata-13)
> >> documents, so I'd prefer to keep the term, but I can add a Terminology
> >> section in the next version.
> >>
> >>  3. Understood.  A lot of the sections are there for historical
> context,
> >> but I'll give it another read through and try to remove some redundancy
> in
> >> the next version.
> >>
> >>  4. a) The WG spent a lot of time debating what is the correct amount
> of
> >> data to send, which was the reason we wrote this document.  I don't
> think
> >> we want to limit the sending of more data; our goal was to limit the
> >> problem scope WG.  I'm not sure we need to add another requirement for
> >> network load; I'm also not sure how we would quantify it.
> >>     b) I agree that there is probably more emphasis than necessary on
> the
> >> Main Use Case.  As a historical note, that was there to help move us
> >> forward toward a decision.  I can try to wordsmith that in the next
> >> version.
> >>
> >> thanx!
> >>
> >> --  Kevin J. Ma
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Mirja Kuehlewind [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 11:29 AM
> >>> To: The IESG
> >>> Cc: [e-mail];
> Francois
> >> Le
> >>> Faucheur; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >>> Subject: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-
> >>> capabilities-semantics-16: (with COMMENT)
> >>>
> >>> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
> >>> draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-capabilities-semantics-16: No Objection
> >>>
> >>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> >>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut
> this
> >>> introductory paragraph, however.)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-
> >> criteria.html
> >>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-cdni-footprint-
> capabilities-
> >>> semantics/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> COMMENT:
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> I did enter enter 'No Objection' because non of my comments should
> hold
> >>> up publication, however, I really would like to see another revision
> of
> >>> this doc to make it easier to read and understand.
> >>>
> >>> 1) Intended status
> >>> This documents contains two things
> >>>   a) Requirements (or here called Design Decision) for a FCI protocol
> >>>   b) Definition of the mandatory base object as well as  needed
> >>> registries
> >>> While a) would clearly be an informational document, I would see b)
> >>> rather as being a Standards track document.
> >>> Further, the document reads as if b) was added late in the process.
> >>> So my question is: was the intended status discussed in the working
> >> group
> >>> and why was it decided to go for information?
> >>>
> >>> 2) footprint vs. capabilities
> >>> I'm sure (I hope) these terms are well understood in the wg, however,
> >> for
> >>> me it is still not clear why a footprint is not just a capability but
> >>> something special. I understood that other capabilities can be bounded
> >> to
> >>> a footprint, however, can this not also be true for other
> capabilities?
> >>> E.g. a certain protocol is only supported for a certain content
> type...
> >>> or something like this?
> >>> Further, I still don't understand why you need a new term called
> >>> footprint. In 2.2 you only talk about coverage which would be the
> better
> >>> (more easy to understand) term for me. Also if you don't support
> >>> something because of resource restrictions, this would still simple
> mean
> >>> that you don't cover something.
> >>> If those terms are well understand and use in the wg, I do understand
> if
> >>> you don't want to apply any changes anymore here. However, for the
> >>> readability it might be helpful to at least add a terminology section
> at
> >>> the very beginning of the doc.
> >>>
> >>> 3) Reduce Redundancy
> >>> I think it would help the readability if the requirements and the
> >>> specification bits would be more clearly separated. I guess all
> >>> requirements are listed and explained well in section 2. Therefore all
> >>> reasoning given in the later section can simply be removed (and if
> >> needed
> >>> replaced by a reference to the respective subsection in 2). Further,
> >> it's
> >>> a little confusion that the requirements are phrased as if they should
> >> be
> >>> addressesd in a future doc, while some of the requirements are already
> >>> addressed in this doc by the given definitions.
> >>>
> >>> 4) Requirements
> >>>   a) It is mentioned a few times that the additional network load by
> >>> sending these information must be limited to a reasonable amount,
> >>> however, there is no explicit requirement in section 2 that is saying
> >>> this. Would it make sense to add one more requirement here?
> >>>   b) Not sure if Focusing on Main Use Cases can/should actually be a
> >>> requirement. The question might be rather but are the restrictions you
> >>> will have by only focusing on the main use case/what cannot/does not
> >> have
> >>> to be supported (overlapping coverage?)... however, that might only be
> a
> >>> wording thing.
> >>>
> >